Re: IETF-54 meeting

Michael MacFaden <mrm <at> riverstonenet.com>
2002-07-09 00:44:03 GMT

On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 03:55:51PM +0100, Les Bell wrote:
>I believe the current drafts are ready to go for a last call, I wanted to get the
>opinion of the Working Group as to whether there is any need to go ahead with
>this meeting.
I won't be attending Yokohama but wanted to comment on two issues
I have previously raised in previous versions of the BRIDGE-MIB draft
which remain in draft-ietf-bridge-bridgemib-smiv2-03.txt.
First, the REFERENCE clause changes do help improve the chances of
interoperable implementations. Yet I still think these two ancient
objects have interoperability issues.
1) dot1dStpPortEnable
I believe there needs to be some text added to the front matter
to describe the relationship between ifAdminStatus and dot1dStpPortEnable.
What is the relationship between ifAdminStatus and dot1dStpPortEnable?
a) none,
b) represent same value (as embodied in cisco catalyst implementation)
c) represent different layers (port level, vs protocol level) (kzm expectation?)
background info: http://www.macfaden.com/ietf/bridge-test-results.txt
2) dot1dStpPortPriority
The wording could be more specific as to what the issue is.
It currently reads:
"The value of the priority field which is contained in
the first (in network byte order) octet of the (2 octet long) Port ID.
The other octet of the Port ID is given by the value of

Bridge-MIB WG meeting is cancelled

Les Bell <Les_Bell <at> eur.3com.com>
2002-07-12 10:17:20 GMT

Judging from the limited response on the mailing list, it seems that there are
no issues that warrant discussion in Yokohama, so the Bridge-MIB WG meeting at
IETF-54 has been cancelled.
The only issues raised on the mailing list, re the current drafts, have been
from Mike McFaden. Please respond to Mike's email with your views on those
issues.
Les...

dot1dStpPortAdminPathCost

Romascanu, Dan (Dan <dromasca <at> avaya.com>
2002-07-24 12:10:23 GMT

I have a question concerning the definition of dot1dStpPortAdminPathCost. in draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-03.txt. The text in 3.4.1.2 mentions that the definition remains unchanged, but the permissible values are extended to 1-200,000,000. I am not sure how this change is supposed to be implemented, but the range of the object in the MIB is still (0..65535). Can one of the authors clarify?

Re: dot1dStpPortAdminPathCost

Les Bell <Les_Bell <at> eur.3com.com>
2002-07-24 12:54:43 GMT

The range is intended to be (0..200000000), as you noticed. We need to fix
this.
Les...
"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca <at> avaya.com> <at> ietf.org on 24/07/2002 13:10:23
Sent by: bridge-mib-admin <at> ietf.org
To: <bridge-mib <at> ietf.org>
cc: "Haleva, Amir
Subject: [Bridge-mib] dot1dStpPortAdminPathCost
I have a question concerning the definition of dot1dStpPortAdminPathCost. in
draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-03.txt. The text in 3.4.1.2 mentions that the
definition remains unchanged, but the permissible values are extended to
1-200,000,000. I am not sure how this change is supposed to be implemented, but
the range of the object in the MIB is still (0..65535). Can one of the authors
clarify?
Thanks,
Dan
(See attached file: C.htm)

I have a question concerning the definition of dot1dStpPortAdminPathCost. in draft-ietf-bridge-rstpmib-03.txt. The text in 3.4.1.2 mentions that the definition remains unchanged, but the permissible values are extended to 1-200,000,000. I am not sure how this change is supposed to be implemented, but the range of the object in the MIB is still (0..65535). Can one of the authors clarify?